Time for a family discussion. The personhood debate has been a searing one, and I must confess that I tend to come down on the side of the personhood amendments. Folks have written to me from both sides of the aisle on this one, and I feel somewhat like a dazed and confused fish out of water. I’ll throw out my observations and take my lumps like a big boy. I ask but one favor…
To those disappointed with the bishops, I ask that we stick to the facts and keep the tone civil. They are the Apostolic Successors, and as St. Paul enjoins us, we must love them because of their office. We can fight like hell at the same time, as families will do, but I respect their office and will not permit disrespect here.
So, that said, let me pick a bone with my beloved bishops. I have read their position, that they support personhood in principle, but that prudential judgement makes them pass on backing this legislative movement. The fear is that a personhood amendment might be overturned in the courts, leading to a reaffirmation of Roe, and threatening the extant pro-life legislative victories that were hard-fought and hard won.
I don’t get that reasoning, and sincerely welcome a lawyer to explain the mechanics that would bring about the implosion the bishops fear.
As I see it, a reaffirmation of Roe will last as long as the pro-Roe majority on the Court; a see-saw battle that I expect to rage for decades to come. But how does an affirmation of a law already in force destroy our pro-life legislative victories that have been won while Roe has been the law of the land? How is it that these laws have passed in the shadow of Roe, but placing an exclamation point after Roe would present such an existential threat to us?
I simply don’t see that.
Next is the argument that personhood may not be the best strategy for defeating abortion. Perhaps. But this, I think, is a form of myopia that comes from focusing on the single issue before oneself and not being able to see clearly the other issues beyond that one issue.
Personhood encompasses all of the life spectrum and speaks to the issue of one’s fundamental human identity, dignity, and standing under the law. I think we make a colossal error when we speak of personhood only in terms of abortion. Buck v. Bell has never been overturned to my knowledge, and I don’t think it a stretch to say that we’ll see efforts at some not-too-distant point to forcibly sterilize the mentally handicapped. With autism being diagnosed in 1:112 children and the expense in treating these children bankrupting school districts, sending property taxes through the roof, do the math.
Then there is the rapidly accelerating pace and scope of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands, among others in Europe. The mentally ill are now being euthanized without their knowledge or consent. It’s getting frightening. How long can we look at these things from the safety of our shores and not be affected? We already have states with physician-assisted suicide, which is how euthanasia gains a toe-hold.
State-run healthcare in Oregon comes with letters to advanced cancer patients denying life-extending drugs and offering physician-assisted suicide instead.
Abortion. Compulsory sterilization. Euthanasia.
Personhood covers them all. While we dither on the front end of the life spectrum, a wildfire is growing out of control on the other end of the life spectrum.
Pro-life had better mean more than just anti-abortion, and while one needs to pick one’s battles carefully and focus to be effective, the bishops as a body do not have the luxury of myopia.
Finally, the voices that say:
“Not now”
“The time isn’t right”
“Perhaps some day”
“It might be a costly battle”
“We can’t win that fight, so let’s not try”
“There are other priorities”
All sound exactly like the voices of reason that tried to assuage the abolitionists of their righteous determination, and like those who pleaded with ‘Negros’ and ‘Coloreds’ to bear their lack of equality with stoic acceptance during the decades before the Civil Rights Movement. But our Black brothers and sisters taught us well that justice delayed is justice denied.
In the personhood fight, it isn’t just the pre-born babies we’re fighting for, but ourselves, our handicapped, our sick, our elderly.
There seems to be an unhealthy dose of myopia on both sides of this issue. If we aren’t careful, it is a myopia that will prevent us from seeing the chains waiting for us all down the line.
Dr. Nadal,
I’m from Canada, so I’m not overly familiar with the personhood movement in the US, and I can’t speak to the in-family bickering among Catholics there. I certainly don’t have legal experience, so take my opinion for what it’s worth (next to nothing)
But the personhood amendment doesn’t sit well with me, and here’s why.
First of all, maybe we should begin with defining the word person. The classical definition that I’ve been taught is that a person is a being with a rational soul. I’ve also been taught (and assent to) that the soul is joined with the body at conception.
Which is all very well and good, but that is a theological argument, and really doesn’t have much place in a secular society. Modern secular society and government aren’t all that much concerned about the human soul, and whether all people have them.
If we were to define person in the context of today’s society, I think the definition would be something along the lines of “a person is a human who is capable of directing his/her own life, is capable of rational thought, and is capable of making his own decisions.” If that is the case, then I think it is clear that a significant number of human beings (i.e. children and the mentally incapacitated) do not meet this criteria.
Bear with me here.
I’ve been perusing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it seems to me that, apart from the first five articles, the majority of the enumerated human rights apply to someone who is capable of self-directing his own life.
Imagine, for example, if children were identified as persons under the law. Article 9 states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” There go time-outs and grounding. I really do think that, if individual personhood were granted to all humans, the state could quite easily interfere further into families, and erode the rights of parents to raise their own children.
I should make myself clear: I absolutely believe that all human beings, unborn included, have a right to life. However, I think being human should be enough. I don’t think that you need to be labelled a person in order to partake of this fundamental right.
I hope this makes sense…
It is scientifically obvious that, at conception, what we have is a human being, and that person remains a human being until death (which has been subject to some unfortunate revisions in definition too). The problem is, humanity is not actually a legal concept. Personhood is (and can refer to many things other than individuals). Children, I believe, are considered persons under the law. They are also minors. It is unreasonable to presume that personhood amendments would directly erode the rights of parents to care for minor children, which certainly include the unborn.
glorifyhisson: Point well taken. However, as is clear from recent history, ANYTHING is possible in this country and we should never assume that “it won’t happen here.” That’s what the German people and the German Jews believed right while Hitler was railroading hunddreds of thousands of Jewish men, women, and children to the gas chambers.
We, as Catholic Americans passionate for all life, should never rest on our laurels regarding these issues. These issues are not as simple as they may first appear. Careful scrutiny and prayerful consideration of these critical political/theological questions must be made in order to lift the deliberate veil placed on them by those who oppose Catholic moral teachings. Definitions matter. Language matters as we can clearly see from Dr. Nadal’s commentary. We have to be ever vigilant when listening to political rhetoric (in the post-modern meaning, of course). These politicos and liberal left-winging catholics are adept at using words and language to confuse and obfuscate important moral tenets. As Dr. Nadal prophetically warns, this “personhood” concern encompasses more than just the unborn.
I came across this article this morning, and felt it was rather pertinent to this debate ( http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3559 ).
@glorifyhisson: ” It is unreasonable to presume that personhood amendments would directly erode the rights of parents to care for minor children, which certainly include the unborn.”
Really? Because what I see happening here is that we are headed toward a society where the only rights that are legally recognized are the rights of an individual. Individualism is rampant here and the law seems to be developing so that it doesn’t really recognize the relationships within families, or faith groups, or communities. (I could be wrong here, and hope I am. I am, after all, just a layperson.)
A mere scientific classification of “human” is in no way dispositive (or even persuasive) as to an ethcial classification. One diminishes their credibility if they argue to the contrary; they cannot show the scientific experiment as to where something becomes ethically human.
Personhood is a legal term of art. Look in the US Const., human being is not mentioned once, the word person is what we use when describing a human being vis-a-vis their legal rights, that’s why it is important in the law (in addition to the moral aspects.)
Watch this video to see why personhood is legally important:
http://www.personhoodusa.com/video/supreme-court-says-personhood-way-go
Melissa I too am from Canada and it seems that here in our country we have no attempt at all to even remotely recognize the humanity of the unborn baby. It’s very sad indeed. Any attempt to get our judicial system to recognize a second victim in the case of women who are murdered while pregnant failed.
Today after Mass, a group of us were discussing the prolife group that exists on the campus of a nearby university. One of the young women involved in the group mentioned how there is a Christian group on campus that is definitely prolife but won’t have ANYTHING to do with the prolife group. We were talking about how here in Canada, prolife = bigoted, anti-women etc. Someone then made the suggestion that the group call itself “Culture of Life” or something similar since being prolife now encompasses the fight for the rights of many people – the unborn, the elderly, those with Down Syndrome, the disabled etc.
I believe you are correct when you say that the focus of our societies, our case law and our medical practices seem to be on the rights of the individuals – but only certain individuals will have those rights.
It is no longer enough to be genetically human. That’s a scary thought.
Book on Personhood that supports Dr. Nadal’s position:
Personhood: A Pragmatic Guide to Prolife Victory in the 21st Century and a Return to First Principles in Politics
http://www.tkspublications.com
I agree with PS in the previous post that the climate right now is not appropriate for a personhood amendment. Also it might not get that much support.
Personhood now! It’s never the wrong time to do the right thing!
I consider myself literate and a bible reader. Jehovah declares all organisms are to reproduce after their own kind. I am a person. so all my children are persons at all stages of their life. I do not vote for the Parties that support the ungodly Roe VS. Wade decision per 2 Chron. 19:1-3. That would be rejection of God’s will and contrary to “Thy will be done on earth as……”.
The unborn don’t have to ” qualify ” to become a person; they are just as much of a person at conception as you or me. Even the smallest among us recognize this, probably more easily than adults do; as adults we can “nuance ” and ” rationalize ” our way into some morally difficult-to-defend positions.
The law is a teacher. When we teach that the unborn can be killed, we are teaching little children that those smaller than them can be killed if the law says it can be done. This teaches that self-control is really not an important virtue to attain. From there, it’s easy to see why children grow up to seek deadly solutions to difficult questions in life.
I think I’m quoting Mother Teresa accurately here; she said, ” War is God’s punishment for abortion.” Connecting the above dots explains, to me and my pea brain anyway, how abortion and war are connected. Maybe children can provide the ” Occam’s Razor ” understanding of why we need to overturn Roe before another generation grows up thinking that war is always the answer to difficult problems.
Some may have noticed that there are now in the U.S. warring factions gathering in various places and ways, defending and preparing to defend their ” tribe” from attack.For almost 40 years, the Pro Life Movement has provided an example to the world of how to avoid war; it has been a great Movement of Prayer, openly and peacefully advocating for the basic human rights of all peoples everywhere. As Chamberlain said before the Battle of Gettysburg to troops who had deserted, and whom he needed in the coming battle, ” I’m afraid, if we lose this battle, we will lose the war.”
Men have sacrificed their very lives to pass on the Freedoms of Liberty recognized and hallowed in our Constitution. I’m afraid, if we lose the righteous battle for the rights of the unborn to be considered persons, the war that is inevitably coming will bring an end to the American Experiment, confirmed by our very souls, our lives, and our sacred honor as Christians.
May God have mercy on us if we give up the fight for personhood for the unborn.
Gerard,
Congratulations on your stand on Personhood. What brought about the change?
I have been involved in the Personhood Campaign since 2007 In Colorado. I also am a FetilityCare Practitioner and have been given a close look at the brainwashing of women by the medical establishment.
I agree that the groups who have been advising the Bishops (AUL, RTL, USCCB staffers) have been myopic regarding the eugenic results of ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as a human being who is not a person. They didn’t ring the alarm at where our society was heading. Now, eugenic techniques are deeply embedded in medicine and we can’t afford to wait any longer to turn things around.
.
I don’t agree that Personhood legislation/ammendments will affect end of life issues. Once born, all are condidered persons, are they not? How would their rights be further protected by declaring that they were persons before birth?
Personhood ammendments simply say that human beings are persons at every stage of development. The underlying assumption is that there is no such thing as a human who is not also a person. . This is where our Catholic philosphers like to write make papers and have their academic debates. Personhood campaigners don’t enter into philosophical debates. They challenge the culture by proposing a simple definition based on biology and tradition – that personhood is a quality of being human. And all people are created equal and have the right to life. The simple, stark statments in Personhood ammendments state the obvious with no apologies. Their simplicity turns the campaigns into great educational vehicles reminding the populace of the values that have been leached out of the culture by Roe.
What the campaign will affect is monkeying with people at the very beginning of their lives – pre-IMPLANTATION genetic diagnosis and culling, as well as pregnancy reduction and embryo freezing done by reproductive endocrinologists using IVF, etc.
Most pro-lifers haven’t recognized that more abortions are being performed by these eugenic techniques as well as abortifacient “contraceptives” than are being killed by surgical abortion. It will also call a halt to experiments using children in the zygote (and earlier) and blastocyst stages.
But will it protect chimera children from being produced? Maybe they won’t have rights because by adding even a small amount of animal genes to human, chimera’s won’t be considered fully human.
I agree with you about autism and other disorders that are beng diagnosed. at earllier and earlier stages. Can you imagine the pressure on women whom the pharmaceutical companies enable with ever earlier and more precise prenatal genetic testing/screening of mother and child? By the way, the latest research indicates that the epidemic of autism may be caused by toxic gut flora caused by generations of overusing antibiotics (in addition to vaccines containing embryonic DNA). Catholic hospitals have their own genetic counselors participating in the process of tempting women to make the decision abort.
You are right about myopia – the horror is not only the unmarried women marching into Planned Parenthood. It’s also the 40 year old married women letting lab techs sort through 8 or more of their chldren conceived in petri dishes, deciding which ones are fit to to be transferred or frozen and which ones will be discarded. It’s the 80% of mothers who abort their children after a diagnosis of down’s syndrome.
Congratulations, Gerard, on breaking ranks with the pro-life leadership on this one. It’s been a nightmare watching the USCCB advise Catholic Conferences to work against Personhood in every state where it’s been proposed. We couldn’t understand what was happening. Now, it seems that perhaps it’s that all these groups want to maintain access to the “pro-life” politicians they’ve helped elect and don’t want them challenged by the hard issues (rape,incest and life of mother).
The political climate has changed. The Tea Party has inspired people to act more boldly. Remember the partial birth abortion campaign? How many times did it go to the Supreme Court? And the result? Personhood bills/amendment repeatedly ramming the Supreme Court will have a much greater effect.
Just as you said, the personhood precedents set by the states, not even mentioning the word “abortion”, but focuing on human rights, have the ability to side step Roe completely.
Michaela: Super excellent post! I am going to print it and keep it handy! I couldn’t possibly repeat all of what you said…my memory, you know! But, I do have a question, and it doesn’t matter to me who answers it, but: “But will it protect chimera children from being produced? Maybe they won’t have rights because by adding even a small amount of animal genes to human, chimera’s won’t be considered fully human.” What in God’s earth is that all about? When did this become an issue??? Goodness…if this is what I THINK it is, we’re in more trouble than I thought.
I am not very fluent in english … but what do you think of this :
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-anarchy-the-kinsey-legacy?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3f88d62460-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines08_24_2011&utm_medium=email
and also this news :
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-i-helped-my-mother-starve-to-death-retired-new-york-times-reporter-pens
I think the difference between a human and other live organisms is the soul God out into the human at conception. Why doesn’t anybody discuss the soul? Aren’t there any Christians or Jews in the blogers? I put it in my web site http://www.michiganndersforlife.com.
Actually, my earlier blog was ridicule of Christians for not standing up for God’s statement of reproduction after our kind and then voting for the Republicans and Democrats again and again. They put the Justices in the supreme court and don’t impeach for bad behavior. The Supreme Court will have Jehovah as Judge. (Note capitals)
Hi Michaela,
Thanks for your excellent comments. Regarding my change of mind, I didn’t! I haven’t staked out a position on the issue because I have been reading both sides of the debate and looking for some obvious reason that the bishops would have for their opposition. I instinctively agree with personhood, and still am disquieted by the bishop’s lack of support on the issue.
Prudential issues notwithstanding, I don’t find arguments against personhood compelling enough to overcome the proposed legislation. I must reiterate my love and admiration for my bishops. I am with them in all matters pertaining to faith and morals. However, on the life issues, I have not seen a tenacity or outspokenness on their part that matches the peril society is in. To break ranks with them at all is a very, very uncomfortable thing for me to do, and one in which I find no pleasure.
Sr. Terese,
Chimeras are human-animal hybrids.
Their creation doesn’t seem to be regulated in the U.S. and many other countries. Here’s some links:
http://www.frumforum.com/human-animal-hybrid-ban-goes-too-far
http://humananimalchimeras.synthasite.com/the-issues.php
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec05/chimeras_newman-ext.html
Yes, Sister, we are in trouble and have been for a while now. This is why pro-lifers must educate the public by trying to pass laws addressing these issues instead of fiddling around with “parental notification” or “ultrasound” statutes. Rome is burning!!
Dr. Nadal:
I admire your loyalty to the Bishops, and I wish I had your confidence in them at all times. In my opinion, many Bishops, (esp. in U.S.) cannot be trusted in their orthodoxy or adherence to the teachings of the Magisterium. There have been many cases where some bishops have openly defied the Holy Father and the teachings of the Church. That is why, I think, the present and past Holy Fathers have made a concerted effort (albeit, covertly!) to replace these bishops with others who are faithful to the Holy Father and Magisterium.
Even the catechsim teaches us that we are not bound to obey anyone who commands of us anything that is contrary to the constant teachings of the Church–and that includes parents, teachers, religious, priests, and Bishops. Now, with that I do not mean to imply that we have license to pick and choose what we choose to follow. But, if we are properly catechized (which, unfortunately, many catholics are not), it is easier to detect the enemy even within the halls of the Holy Chur ch. I know my words are poor, so I hope I have not misconstrued what you said, or what I am trying to say. I will pray to the Holy Spirit to help me express my thoughts & heart better! God bless you and everyone here!
Dear Gerard,
I find no pleasure in breaking ranks with the Bishops either. Kept my mouth shut for three years trying to find out what was going on. As far as I can see, the Bishops are used to taking advice from certain groups which aren’t even Catholic. Those groups are trusted by and have great influence over pro-life professionals in the medical field as well.
I am so grateful that you have spoken out. I hope you can engage some of the players (Clarke Frosythe, Richard Doerflinger, Jim Bopp) in a forum that could educate the rest of us.
This is not just a philosophical debate. The Personhood Campaign has been intentionally undermined by lobbying of the Bishops by individuals from the groups I mentioned earlier.
Because most Catholics working for Personhood value obedience, they have been outflanked by those whispering into the Bishop’s ears. We didn’t go publlic. We tried to reason with our Bishops and the groups advising them.
I hope I haven’t gone to far in mentioning names. I would hope those I mentioned would be confident enough in their positions not to mind.
Michaela: Where have I been of late??? I NEVER heard of any of this!! I know what a chimera is, but I thought it was merely a mythical creature in fantasy stories! This is tooooo much. God help us all.
Why would anyone care what the bishops say? Dr. Nathanson said if the bishops would have spoken in 1972 before Roe vs. Wade, it never would have happened. Most have been bought by politicians. They seem to have forgotten, “to whom much is given, much is expected”. How many Catholics have gone to Hell and are going to Hell because of their heresies?
Please Blessed Mother help us and our families!!!
Bubbles: I happen to care what the Bishops say precisely because of the points you bring up in your post. Regardless of what they have done or haven’t done or do, they are the successors of the Apostles. Of course we are not bound to follow ANYONE who teaches or commands anything contrary to the Truths of the Catholic Church. However, we must always be cognizant of the fact that it is not our Church–it is God’s Church. As long as we remain faithful to the Holy Father and the teachings of the Magesterium, we are on the right track. This is why it is CRITICAL for all Catholics to be properly and completely catechized, especially in this day and age. Perhaps had the CCD programs and Catholic schools not dropped the “ball” so long ago and continue to do so, we wouldn’t have half of the problems we have in society and the Church today. That is why the recent popes have stressed the importance of evangelization and catechization. It is not something only priests, nuns, and religious are to do, but ALL Catholics. And sometimes, that includes evangelizing our own bishops! When we start thinking we’re smarter, better, or are more “Catholic” than someone else, we tread upon very dangerous ground. We must remain faithful to God’s Church…for as St. Peter wisely said, “Lord, to whom would we go?”